Jump to content

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lectonar (talk | contribs) at 10:30, 3 August 2006 (→{{La|Zé Roberto}}: complied). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


"WP:RFP" and "WP:RPP" redirect here. You may also be looking for Wikipedia:Requests for permissions, Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission, or Wikipedia:Random page patrol.
    Welcome—request protection of a page, file, or template here.
    Shortcuts

    Before requesting, read the protection policy. Full protection is used to stop edit warring between multiple users or to prevent vandalism to high-risk templates; semi-protection and pending changes are usually used to prevent IP and new user vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection); and move protection is used to stop pagemove revert wars. Extended confirmed protection is used where semi-protection has proved insufficient (see the rough guide to extended confirmed protection)

    After a page has been protected, it is listed in the page history and logs with a short rationale, and the article is listed on Special:Protectedpages. In the case of full protection due to edit warring, admins should not revert to specific versions of the page, except to get rid of obvious vandalism.

    Request protection of a page, or increasing the protection level
    Request unprotection of a page, or reducing the protection level
    Request a specific edit to a protected page
    Please request an edit directly on the protected page's talk page before posting here
    this header: view • edit


    Current requests for protection

    Place requests for new or upgrading of article protection, upload protection, or create protection at the BOTTOM of this section. Check the archive of fulfilled and denied requests or, failing that, the page history if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    Significant IP vandalism; needs semi-protection. --Emufarmers(T/C) 10:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    s-protected. Lectonar 10:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This page still gets vandalized so many times even more than I expected. I don't know what's happening on the article Stupidity. There are many aggressive edits on the article that I've mentioned right now. I hope some admin could semi-protect the Stupidity from vandalism. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Fully protected by Tawker. -- ADNghiem501 07:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Suggest semi-protection as a user with a dynamic IP continues to reinsert spam links without Talk page discussion. I would impose the protection myself but I am an involved party. Full protection may also be warranted if this is considered a garden-variety edit war. (ESkog)(Talk) 03:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Reducing to semi-protection per User:Kotepho (see here). The user who requested this page to be unprotected placed it in a wrong section. However, no one other than me had made any response to this request. The request was cleared out, and was neither fulfilled nor denied. -- ADNghiem501 01:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection - a series of anonymous editors have been adding numerous wild rumours and speculation to the article. McPhail 22:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:222.153.112.156 (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection IP user constantly vandalizes own talk page, removing warnings - Bootstoots 21:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    User talk:Stephencolbert (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    Semi-protection to get rid of the IP editors who constantly try to contact the supposed real Stephen Colbert. Ryūlóng 21:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Featured article has been the target of vandalism. Fluffy the Cotton Fish 15:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Current requests for unprotection

    Shortcuts

    Before posting, first discuss with the protecting admin on their talk page. Post below only if you receive no reply.

    • To find out the username of the admin who protected the page, click on "history" at the top of the page, then click on "View logs for this page," which is under the title of the page. The protecting admin is the username in blue before the words "protected", "changed protection level" or "pending changes". If there are a number of entries on the log page, you might find it easier to select "Protection log" or "Pending changes log" from the dropdown menu in the blue box.
    • Requests to downgrade full protection to template protection on templates and modules can be directed straight here; you do not need to ask the protecting admin first.
    • Requests for removing create protection on redlinked articles are generally assisted by having a draft version of the intended article prepared beforehand.
    • If you want to make spelling corrections or add uncontroversial information to a protected page, please add {{Edit fully-protected}} to the article's talk page, along with an explanation of what you want to add to the page. If the talk page is protected, please use the section below.

    Check the archives if you cannot find your request. Only recently answered requests are still listed here.

    User talk:Plautus satire (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs)

    • Protected since 02:02, 31 July. Intensive discussion has taken place in the talk page. Mediation may be requested to help resolve some issues, but in the mean time, unprotect to see to what extent editors can collaborate to write the article in a balanced way. --Ezeu 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Unprotected. Good luck. Rich Farmbrough 16:25 2 August 2006 (GMT).

    Semi-protected since 29 April. TacoDeposit 14:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Unprotected Protected for a while, hopefully everything has cooled down. Yanksox 21:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I noticed that this user never edited his own user talk page after being blocked, yet it was fully protected immediately after his blockage. Doesn't seem to work for me. --128.113.172.114 13:43, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Being the current Collaboration of the week, it should not be protected.--Sean gorter{mind a chat?} e@ CVU

    Current requests for significant edits to a protected page

    Shortcut

    Ideally, requests should be made on the article talk page rather than here.

    • Unless the talk page itself is protected, you may instead add the appropriate template among {{Edit protected}}, {{Edit template-protected}}, {{Edit extended-protected}}, or {{Edit semi-protected}} to the article's talk page if you would like to make a change rather than requesting it here. Doing so will automatically place the page in the appropriate category for the request to be reviewed.
    • Where requests are made due to the editor having a conflict of interest (COI; see Wikipedia:Suggestions for COI compliance), the {{Edit COI}} template should be used.
    • Requests to move move-protected pages should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves, not here.
    • If the discussion page and the article are both protected preventing you from making an edit request, this page is the right place to make that request. Please see the top of this page for instructions on how to post requests.
    • This page is not for continuing or starting discussions regarding content should both an article and its discussion page be protected. Please make a request only if you have a specific edit you wish to make.

    Fullfilled/denied requests

    Full protection 41 edits, roughly 25% or more reverts. All over a month or so. Also I suggest other remedies as well. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 22:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: This seems like a content dispute. Ansell 03:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


    Her real name was Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. In really she was the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal. This was the definitive sentence of the Sacra Romana Rota, the most important tribunal for cattolich birth. So the doubts of many wiki user that use this page for vandalism are groundless because the official document states she was daughter of the king. So she is a real pretender. Please delete in this page the link to "impostor pretender" because this affirmation is false. And please so stop with this protection and in this page write only official and objective documented facts and not doubts or personal opinion because this is a encyclopedia and not a talk page. NunoS. 10:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Un-protected. Its been protected for long enough. Hopefully things have calmed down since then. Voice-of-All 08:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Re-semi-protected by Jtdirl, shortly after unprotection. -- ADNghiem501 00:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection Primary elections are being held next Tuesday (Aug 8). The Joe Lieberman article is getting repeatedly slammed by anon vandalism. Two editors are having problems, but have entered mediation, so that's not as big of a problem, but the anon vandalism is hard to keep up with. Article needs help between now and the election on Tuesday. Sandy 00:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection granted -- Avi 00:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Several different IPs keep vandalising this article changing the word "game" to "con" everywhere in the article. It is becoming more and more frequent SenorKristobbal 19:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is not enough recent activity to justify protection at this time. Just watchlist and revert any vandalism. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection Stephen Colbert apparently told viewers of his show to add a nonsense phrase to this article: it has been the target of numerous vandals since. Skybright Daye 18:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Redactor lost caesar continually edits out controversies of Saint Paul, most of which annotated with page numbers. I suppose due to bias and user does not come to conclusive grounds in discussion.

    Protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection. Is consistently being vandalised by different IPs (probably spam bots) replacing the top section with a spam link. I know the frequency of vandalism normally wouldn't merit protection, but this is a stable article with no other regular edits, the anti vandal bots don't seem to pick it up and I can't stand guard over it 24 hours a day. Yomangani 10:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Semi-protection. IP editor keeps removing sourced information and references. Jayjg (talk) 15:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protection granted temporarily; please work out issues on talk. -- Avi 15:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. Edit war between two users. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:30, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Full protection. Edit war between two users. —Khoikhoi 03:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. --Srikeit (Talk | Email) 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Full protection. High-use template redirect to protected Template:Usertalk-vprotect. It was merged with that. -- ADNghiem501 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    I am trying to add a picture onto this post, but for some unknown reasons, I am being blocked when I have not violated any rules or regulations. Therefore, I would appreciate my editing rights to be restored.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dhwani1989 (talk • contribs) .

    This request is rather confusing and most definitely misplaced. You were blocked for uploading pictures that violated copyright violations, it is totally unrelated to the page in question. If you want it to be unprotected, you file it a little further down from here, and you are no longer blocked since you just edited this page. Yanksox 21:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Requesting semi-protection. This page undergoes close to 100 edits a day, mostly consisting of speculative additions to the game's roster and associated reverts, despite multiple warnings (clearly displayed throughout the article!) not to make any such edits without concrete references. Y2kcrazyjoker4 21:05, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi-protected. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    Reduce to semi-protection. --TheM62Manchester 12:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Why? Lectonar 12:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Template:DickWitham, Template:GT and Template:Milk are all still editable; shouldn't WoW's be?? --TheM62Manchester 13:14, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I don't think so; WoW is far more prominent and prolific than the others you mentioned, and has impersonators in it's own right. I wouldn't lift the full-protection, but will leave it here for discussion. Lectonar 13:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


    This article exhibits notability and there has been no discussion otherwise. It should be unprotected and created. Truthiness is an article. --Nick Catalano contrib talk 07:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC) Update[reply]

    -Second --MChilcote 09:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    I too request unprotection for "Wikiality". Truthiness before it became a significant item that ended up in the New York Times and now has a lengthy and popular Wikipedia article; "Wikiality" deserves its own article as well. If only to document important mentionings in the media etc. — Tomsintown 1:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

    I request unprotection for the Wikiality article for the serious reasons given by me in the talk page associated with the Wikiality article. --Antonio Basto 20:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no reason to protect this article. It is not an attempt to vandalize anything. It is a unique term invented by Stephen Colbert that should be allowed to be defined with language similar to what happened to truthiness.

    No, Wikiality is not notable yet. Colbert has run an awful lot of "Wørd" segments, many of them with made-up words, and obviously we don't report on all of them. This has been discussed quite a bit at Talk:The Colbert Report#Wikiality 2. --Interiot 01:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    That's ridiculous. The entire blogosphere has already noted the word, which can't be said for some of his previous neologisms. Truthiness was huge, this is on its way. Enough with the elitism! --Tomsintown 12:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    May I suggest that the page be unprotected, so that an article can be written about wikiality, and then, afterwards, if it is seen that the article does not meet the quality guidelines, let it be deleted. But this pre-emptive blocking of a page that has not been vandalized is unheard of, and it is certainly a form of censorship. If wikiality wasn´t a term related to, and perhaps detrimental of, Wikipedia, I bet the page wouldn´t be under protection. Shame! --201.79.43.65 19:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    This is under the fulfilled/denied heading, but there is no logo indicating if unprotection was granted or denied. And, looking at the page for wikiality, I see that the request was denied. I respectfully request a review of this, hereby re-submmiting the request for unprotection.

    I would just like to point out that the full protection for this page DOES NOT meet Wikipedia's own policy. There has been no record of vandalism in the Wikiality page, and, even if there were, being caused by the proeminent offsite reference in the Colbert Report, it would still not warrant full protection under Wikipedia's protection policy. I find it incredible that this is going on for almost three days when a full protection to such a page is totally foreign to Wikipedia's policy. Let someone write the article, and then, if it is found to be crap, let it be submitted for deletion. But this pre-emptive blocking is totally unnecessary, and none of the provisions of the protection policy apply in this case. If this goes on, I'll certainly request mediation. --Antonio Basto 04:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    In terms of Wikiality's notability as a concept, let's just note that there were ZERO results that came up for the invented term on Google as recently as 24 hours ago. Today, there are 230,000 -- and that's just in a day. Have you ever seen a term fill up the lexicon like that so quickly? - Stick Fig 06:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&oldid=67414919"